Joel v Morison [1834] 172 ER 1338;
(1834) 6 Car & P 501
NEGLIGENCE, LIABILITY, INJURY CAUSED BY EMPLOYEES,
EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY
Facts
The plaintiff was walking on foot on a public highway. The defendant had a horse and a cart, which were under the care, government and direction of his servant. The servant was driving the cart carelessly, improperly and negligently and struck the plaintiff with the cart whilst making a detour from the task, which his master had sent him for. The plaintiff fell on the ground and as a result, one of his legs was fractured. He was prevented from conducting his business for six months, he had to incur medical expenses and further expenses in order to employ workers to look after his business. The plaintiff sought compensation from the master.
Issues
Is the master of a servant liable in damages for the careless driving of the latter?
Decision/Outcome
The verdict was in favour of the plaintiff.
(1) The master is liable for the careless driving of his servant if the servant is driving the cart on his master’s business or if the servant, being on his master’s business, decides to take a detour.
(2) The master is not liable for the careless driving of his servant, if the servant decides to lend the cart to another person without the master’s knowledge or the cart is secretly taken by a person who is not at the time employed on his master’s business.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary accurately describes the decision in Joel v Morison (1834) 6 Car & P 501, a foundational authority on vicarious liability and the ‘frolic of a servant’ doctrine. The legal principles stated remain good law. The distinction between a ‘detour’ (for which the master remains liable) and a ‘frolic’ (for which the master is not liable) continues to be recognised in modern vicarious liability analysis. These principles have been developed and refined by subsequent case law, most notably by the Supreme Court in Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society [2012] UKSC 56 and Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] UKSC 11, which applied and expanded the ‘close connection’ test for vicarious liability. Students should be aware that while Joel v Morison retains historical and doctrinal significance, the modern law of vicarious liability has evolved considerably beyond the straightforward employer/employee context addressed in this case, and the Supreme Court has more recently revisited the boundaries of the doctrine in Various Claimants v Barclays Bank plc [2020] UKSC 13 and Various Claimants v Morrisons Supermarket plc [2020] UKSC 12. The core principles summarised in this article remain accurate for introductory purposes.
